Jameson's project

You should see jams' little "lesson" in theatre. It is not only full of misconceptions, it reads like a second grade primer titled "Let's go to a play!" If this is any indication of the level of theatrical writing skill we're talking about here, this play may turn out to be a comedy yet, if unintended by its author.

What's really precious is how she already is blaming BORG for RUINING the show by heckling the actors! Rest easy, jams, that's not how it works.

I've seen many plays and musicals from both sides of the stage, in a number of states, some controversial, some offensive to audience members, and I have never once seen any audience member heckle the actors. People walk out. People don't come to see the play. They may even call the Board or write the newspaper. This is how theatre goers react if they object to a play's contents. Theatre is not the Internet. At least, not outside Hickory. To blame BORG for heckling the actors in a play that hasn't and may never see the curtain go up is exactly the mentality so absurd to those of us who actually have some sense of reality.

Rainsong also apparently has no idea what theatre is, but that doesn't stop her from trying to tell everyone else, does it? She seems to be arguing that Harper Lee got lucky. She implies the EDITOR pretty much wrote the book for Lee. Does she really think that great writing comes out whole and brilliant with the first draft? (Maybe if you're Shakespeare or Mozart.) Has she so little comprehension of the process she believes no REAL professionally published writer uses editing, criticism, rewrites, soul searching, inspiration, and, more than an ability to create words and sentences in some order, serious talent? Rainsong actually states that in writing, writing is "moot" if you're inspired! I'm not making this up!

Then Rainsong clumsily attempts to use Agnes De Mille's ballet, Fall River Legend, as her example of a dark story which was successful onstage. Now jams is being compared to Agnes De Mille? Bad choice.

Anyone may walk from here to there, but to choreograph dance like Agnes De Mille takes inborn talent and a lifetime of commitment, study, physical ability, resources, and devotion to perfecting the art. What raises walking to the art of the dance is a life of sacrifice and effort those who haven't tried it have no idea exists. To take it to the level of De Mille is to discover fire in the body fueled directly by whatever is god.

http://www.kennedy-center.org/calen...n=showIndividual&entitY_id=3719&source_type=A

To write like Harper Lee takes the same.

http://mockingbird.chebucto.org/bio.html

I honestly think the swamp must be membered by schizophrenics, maybe a group therapy gang? How else to explain their delusions of grandeur?

Well, you tried to tell them, Why Nut. I guess explaining A R T at the swamp is like describing colors to a person born without sight. Enjoying local theatre does not a playwright make.

 

Kk

You are absolutely right. My husband and I have been theatregoers for over 20 years. We go at least once a month and are patrons of one theatre. I have also been involved in theatre production for many years :stretch: .... I have never once seen a member of the audience heckle the actors. Calling out during a performance only happens at the Pantomime - where audience participation is a major part of the show.

I've only ever seen audience members walk out during a show once - at "Jesus Christ SUperstar" - we were told it's a nightly occurence as some audience members are invariably offended on religious grounds.

Usually what happens is that the audience will sit politely through the first act and then leave at the interval.

 

Sooooooooooo, who is going to call their local performing art centers to request this Piece of Work?

Anybody?

Oh well.........I'll return to my laughing myass off over the Freak Show, a/k/a JamCan, shouting that Fleet doesn't act normal.......National Organization of Ramsey Murderers Acting Looney?!

:kranky:

 

I would be embarrassed to bring that awful piece of work to the attention of our university's theater director. I can guarantee you they would look at me strangely, LOL.

In the first place, they are the seriously artsy type, and they are not interested in presenting some fool's idea of what happened in a criminal case in their theater. In the second place, they deal with the masters - not sub-par, wannabe writers who imagine themselves to be something they are not.

 

Don't look at me! I'd lose all credibility if I brought such amateur hour material to a theatre for more than a class in how not to write a play.

I must apologize to Rainsong, though. Here I was, trying to address her misunderstanding the process of writers using editors, and turns out Rainsong doesn't understand the actual difference between editing and writing. Silly me. Lost cause. Never mind.

 

It occurred to me that here is jameson claiming to have written a play - yet she doesn't actually write....

I wonder if her play is an amalgamation of copied and pasted lines from other plays?

Perhaps we should get Donald Foster to have a look at it and tell us whether he thinks she actually wrote any of it herself?

 

that was a good one

:floor: :floor: :floor: :floor:

 

Now I see that jammysue would like to put together a book regarding Life On The Net. And I Swamp Quote as only a BORG Witch would.......

"Maybe a soap opera would better describe what has taken
"place. No one would believe it actually happened to one
lone, bread baking, housewife. LOL~

"You don't know the half of it. Never will. I don't see that story ever in print." SueBenet's response.

I take this to mean that she will always hide The Rest of the Story. But Why? For such an upstanding citizen she rests easy knowing her chips can't fall into place as long as she has half of them hidden away in hir Velvet Glove.

Start with me today, Skank - it is Victims Rights Week so I am feeling more motivated to Fight Monsters and those that Enable them.

:rrcrown:
Rat

 

The rest of the story probably isn't much more than the havoc an addiction to playing the Ramsey fool can take on one's financial health. All those plane trips and "consulting" jobs would amount to whiskey tastes on a beer budget and numerous credit cards bursting at the seams with unpaid debt. The end result, of course, would be finances in ruin, enormous debt, and bankruptcy court to wipe out those debts.

It can happen to anyone, I guess, although it would seem a bit strange for someone to earn a good deal of money from the tabs, and instead of using that windfall to pay off accumulated debts, they instead buy a more expensive home that they can't afford with all their other debts. Fortunately, for them, the other debts are forgiven through bankruptcy, and they get to keep that new house. Some might see that as dishonest. And some might not.

Any questions?

 

The homes of bankrupts get repossessed in the UK.

I am interested in real-life stories - that is, the stories of people who have achieved great things when the odds have been set against them ... or stories of endurance or of people who have triumphed over hardship.

jameson is basically a nobody who voluntarily involved herself into a murder case, persuaded some case players to share information with her (information which she subsequently sold to tabloid newspapers). Meanwhile, she took on an air of importance with regard to the case. jameson is always "hinting" about what she knows and won't tell. Quite frankly, that bores me. ANybody (or any nobody) can hint about what they know and won't tell.

As I see it, jameson may have made a few bucks out of the ramsey case, but she hasn't really achieved anything of significance. She will be best remembered for selling the Ramsey interview tapes to the tabloisd.

 

I think in the USA, certain assets, like homes and vehicles, are exempt from bankruptcy laws unless the debtor can't, or doesn't want to, pay for them. I'm not sure, but I think if the debtor has kept payments up on a mortgage or vehicle, the creditor can agree to continue with the contracts.

I agree with your analysis of Susan Bennett, Jayelles, and I see no logical reason for her over-inflated ego. She surely doesn't have the talents or brains to go with that ego.

 

I wish I were as convinced that Jameson started out as a nobody.

I don't know how she started or if she really (as rumored) is related somehow to the players in the case but IMO,:

NO WAY! NO WAY! NO WAY! was she just a housewife with a "vision" who fell onto this case like the "rest of us"

Somewhere, somebody sought her help FOR MONEY to do what she has done in this case.

Nobody will ever convince me otherwise

 

LOL, Barbara. Well, I disagree with you. It might be an entry in Ripley's Believe it or Not, but, believe it or not, there are people who are so full of their own importance, they will obsessively insert themselves into a murder case to the point that jameson has inserted herself. While some of the players have talked to her, I'm afraid she spins that involvement to be quite a bit more than their being polite to her - except for Smit, of course, someone I believe is just as stupid as she is.

Anything she has done has been for her own self-promotion and enrichment, though. She proved that when she gained financially by selling information from the murder of a six year old girl that she, allegedly, was not related to or did not even know before the murder.

 

You could very well be right WY, but I just can't get past how quickly after the murder she was not only inserting herself into this case, but to what great lengths she went to convince others of the Ramsey innocence.

She started out so early on with lying, threatening, making up stories for Donald Foster, needing to discredit LE with involvment, talking really psychotic about her own self, her "wife", self mutilation, rape, snakes, etc.

If you are right, then she is indeed a really mentally ill person. If I am right, she has earned her "salary"

Either way, the Ramseys are guilty!

 

Then you may be thinking Susan Stine is involved here, Barbara (?). According to John Ramsey, Stine was the first person to mention Jameson to the Ramseys, but who can believe anything these two say? I think Stine saw a way of using Jameson. First Susan Stine tells John about Susan Bennett, then Bennet aka Jameson writes to the Ramseys, then they meet in Atlanta, and so on and so forth ... ... ... ...no need to take this any further, you know the rest.

Who do you have in mind as the money maker?

 

Exactly, RR. I agree that jams has admitted some things here, in her "I know what you don't" mode she loves so well.

Jams: "You don't know the half of it. Never will. I don't see that story ever in print."

She has admitted that whatever the truth is, she's never going to tell it. Why would she guard these secrets so closely? Because the truth would reveal things she and her anonymous partners wouldn't want others to know, as it would discredit them? Sounds about right to me.

Even more sinister, perhaps she has lied because the truth would incriminate the Ramseys even more. Remember her proud little expose of Foster that she considers her biggest triumph? Well, next to bringing home a 40 thou paycheck.... She claims her initial lies trapped Foster, and she hawks that as some kind of major accomplishment to this day. (I personally don't ever want to be known as an accomplished liar, but that's just me.)

It might do well to remember the purpose of "jameson" tricking Foster on the forums and in email into thinking she was in fact a male and the killer: to discredit his ransom note analysis in a trial, should one take place. Remember that jams got herself investigated as a suspect because of her so convincing lies online, her "visions," her "inside info," some of which she has also bragged that she had before even the press did: the autopsy report. How did she get that? She allegedly hadn't even had contact with Smit yet, not until months later? If I had to guess, and if she really only got involved on the forums, then Stine is my best guess, considering how jams' relationship with Stine is one of her most closely guarded secrets: she brags about everyone she knows "inside" the case, but she never talks about Stine, and never has, as far as I can see. Maybe what she's not saying is more important here.

Also remember that jams wanted to testify before the Grand Jury. She said herself she was denied her request by the prosecutors. Smit managed to "legally" blackmail Hunter into getting his appearance before the Grand Jury, after stealing the PowerPoint presentation after he quit his job with the DA. And there was jams, trying to get into the Grand Jury as well, and for no other reason that to counter Foster's testimony, should he appear. Of course, by the Grand Jury, jams and Smit were long in bed together. What would make Smit trust jams so much?

Why would Tracey, a die hard RST member who knew which side his bread was buttered on, trust this housewife from N.C.? Tracey thinks forum people are crazy, he said so himself on TV. Perhaps that's part of the story we don't have. Remember, jams was also in bed with Tracey way back. I wasn't around then, and the stories were quite strange about jams' trip to Boulder to meet with Tracey. Just why would Tracey, Smit, Stine, and the Rams, under fire from the press and the BPD, be so willing to meet with and/or give case sensitive information to a stranger from N.C. whose only claim to fame was being a liar who told wild tales? Doesn't make sense, does it? Not with the tabs running around offering obscene amounts of money for inside info.

Did Stine pick out a person on the Internet who was playing gender bender, lying about herself, making up wild stories, and tell the Rams, YOU SHOULD MEET WITH THIS PERSON? John says she did in his book. But we know John lies, as well. And why would Stine, who went to great lengths to "protect" the Ramseys from the press, trust a stranger off the internet with actual evidence that was quite valuable? If the BPD was intrigued enough with the information jams had to consider that she had to have some connection to the case, and therefore investigated her as a suspect, why would Smit, the Rams, and Stine trust this stranger who might have murdered JonBenet? Well, of course, if the Rams KNEW jams didn't murder JonBenet...because they did...that would explain their trust.... heh

But why would they give a perfect stranger access to case evidence so early on? The autopsy was released to the press back in February or March of '97. The Ramsey lawyers probably got the autopsy from the DA early on, long before the press, I think it's safe to guess, considering what we know about the DA now; they in turn shared it with the prime suspects, their clients. Back then, everyone believed that the child killer would be arrested and prosecuted one day soon. The Ramseys certainly believed they were at the top of the list, as they have said about a million times. The only way Stine could have gotten access to that evidence--the autopsy report, included--would have been through the Ramseys. Why would Stine trust such information to a total stranger on the other side of the country, whom she ONLY met on the internet, who could sell it for big bucks?

One thing we can believe that jams said: she started out lying and she will lie when it suits her agenda.

About those 98 interview transcripts: I was again reading an old Ramsey interview not long ago, and Patsy Ramsey said right there in the interview, either on TV or on the tapes, can't remember which, that she wanted their entire 98 interviews to be released to the public. This was some time before the tapes were received and sold by jams to the NE. Isn't that a coincidence? Not. I've always thought the Rams were quite happy about that NE book. Being the narcissists they are, they could never imagine how many ways they buried themselves with all their lies through the years, many revealed right there in those 98 transcripts.

Well, jams is right about one thing: no one will ever believe her, outside of her wingnut brigade. When you are caught lying, when your claim to fame is being a good liar, and when you can't stop bragging about how you've duped everyone...how can any reasonable person ever believe anything you say? They can't. Ever.

So jams can keep her history of lying to herself until hell freezes over. Because this case is not about her. Now that it's forever buried, jams and her swampsters are nothing more than an amusement, like a freak show, while we wait for the last shoe to drop. And it's as freaky as ever over there. One thing I have learned from the jams of this world: there is no bottom to the abyss.

 

It might do well to remember the purpose of "jameson" tricking Foster on the forums and in email into thinking she was in fact a male and the killer: to discredit his ransom note analysis in a trial, should one take place.

I didn't know that. It makes perfect sense. I just doubt that she was ever investigated, seriously, as the suspected killer. Was she? I don't think I've ever read that she was a suspect - except from her. I always sort of figured she was "suspect" only in her own mind.

 

Yes, Susan Stine is involved and has been, IMO, a part of this from the very beginning

The one thing you will notice: You will NOT see Susan Stine's name mentioned on the BB. When it IS mentioned, (or WAS mentioned), you will find that there are amazingly a gazillion posts and new threads that will push the SS topic all the way to the bottom or to the next page whenever possible.

I have noticed this tactic whenever a topic "distasteful" to the cult is brought up. The thread ends up on the bottom of the page or next page in a real hurry. I can only assume that the regular cult members have been told to omit her name from their posts, theories, etc. I bet they have even been told to NOT respond to those topics so that they will disappear.

From Day ONE: Jameson, SS, and the Ramseys: very corrupt, very suspect and very DIRTY! There was $$$$ involved!!!!!..........and enough to buy one Susan Bennett and one Susan Stine, and lord only knows who else.

Just my opinion of course, but it's been my opinion for almost 10 years

 

I don't read over there, Barbara, but I do believe what you're saying here. I just get a bad feeling about this woman, Susan Stine. She's bad news. I'm sure we have all bumped into her and Patsy on the boards, without a doubt. The famous game players. One of these days, their chips will fall.

 

Well, now we know jams' motive behind the "forum book."

For those who don't know, jams has started a NEW project with "volunteers" to write a chapter each featuring some interest they have in the case. hehehe She's got takers! Their deadline is now JonBenet's birthday in August.

And today, jams reveals her motivation:

We could have gue$$ed.... :laughup: